The local government of Wicomico County, Maryland announced that they will no longer recite the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of meeting, reports The Christian Post.
The move comes after the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a complaint letter, saying that “prayer and proselytizing at government meetings is unnecessary, inappropriate, and divisive.” The decision to forgo the prayer is to avoid expensive litigation after legal advice implied that they would not win the case.
Wicomico County Council President John Cannon said that neither he nor the council is happy is the current set of circumstances.
“We are not a council that shies away from a challenge simply because litigation is threatened. But when legal counsel is clear about the probable outcome, when the financial risk to our citizens is so substantial, we have a responsibility to weigh fiscal stewardship against our desire to preserve a tradition we've honored for so many years,” stated Cannon.
David Cortman, senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) spoke with Jody Hice on Washington Watch. He referred back to Town of Greece v. Galloway, a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding freedom to pray at public meetings, to which he was co-counsel.
“What's funny about this recent case, it feels a little bit like a blast from the past. These issues have been litigated over a decade ago. They've been settled by the Supreme Court over a decade ago,” says Cortman.
In fact, he informs that the original court case regarding legislative prayer came to the Supreme Cout roughly 40 years ago. Mash v. Chambers ruled that legislative prayer is allowed, despite people citing violations to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause or “separation of church and state.”
Government prayers are not new
“The Supreme Court said you have to look at the history and tradition of our country. These types of legislative prayers have been ongoing since literally the First Amendment was passed, and Congress adopted, in fact, hired a chaplain to engage in legislative prayers at the very beginning of our country, and so they're permissible now,” states Cortman.
He explains that the Establishment Clause does not carry what the Left wants it to carry. Therefore, groups such as the FFRF and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) do not either understand the clause or want to comply to it, but they still send out fear-mongering letters that make it hard to recognize an actual infringement to the clause.
“They threaten litigation. They threaten attorney fees. Towns and counties just look at their budget and say, ‘Look, we're already strapped. We don't want to take the risk of having to pay out attorney fees.” So, (leftist groups) say, ‘Look, if you don't stop this practice, we're going to sue you,’” says Cortman.
Groups like the FFFR and the ACLU have been engaging in this practice for years, he said, and what happened in Wicomico County is just another case of it. Furthermore, he says that it is a shame these counties do not enter into protected litigation and instead succumb to demands to stop traditions they have been participating in for decades.”
Critics point out how Cannon’s reason for backing off of legislative prayers is because there was a slim chance of winning in Maryland. He claimed the courts did not have a record of supportive prayer in government meetings.
This begs another question: Does it matter where a case is filed? Cortman answered that it does, but it should not. He points out that, while the law is different according to which area of the country it is in, the Supreme Court is federal law, making it uniform everywhere.
“You may have recalcitrant courts that try to distinguish cases or draw the lines differently, but even if this case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, I think the Supreme Court would certainly bless this practice because it's part of the tradition of our country going back to our founders,” says Coltman. “It's one of those cases where even if it has to go to the Supreme Court, it's pretty clear that they'd say this was a constitutional practice.”
It is reported that the council is going to meet up to explore other their options. Cortman advise them to look at the ways the Supreme court has made legislative prayer permissible and do what has been upheld. For an example, he says doing the prayer before the meeting – prayer then the Pledge of Allegiance then open the meeting.
“Or it's actually for the legislators, the council members, the commission members themselves, and they can feel free to pray according to their religious tradition. The commissioners can take turns each meeting and have their own prayer,” says Cortman. “Another one is to invite those from the local community on a rotational basis, like the town of Greece did. They basically found out what religious organizations were in their town or locality and invited whoever wanted to come to give the opening prayer to solemnize it.”
He encourages that, if others find themselves getting letters threatening litigation from the FFRC, ACLU or similar groups, then the first step is to contact an organization like the ADF. Those groups who have experience in these cases have the ability to give advice and help people take a stand for their religious freedom.
“They shouldn't be scared out of exercising their rights because they get a letter from some group on the Left. They need to be informed. Because once you get educated and realize what your rights are, then you can make a good decision on standing up for the Constitution and the free exercise of religion, which is extremely important in this country,” Cortman said.
A tale of two states
While the local government in Maryland appeared to surrender their religious rights, the state of Louisiana continues to fight those trying to take away theirs.
President Donald Trump won Louisiana with slightly more than 60 percent of the vote in 2024.
According to the Louisiana Illuminator, all 17 judges of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments last week surrounding the Ten Commandments. The case concerns a 2024 law that allowed the Ten Commandments to be posted in every Louisiana public school classroom.
When the lawsuit was originally brought forth, a three-judge panel in the 5th Circuit upheld a previous injunction which called the law unconstitutional.
Ben Aguiñaga, Solicitor General of Louisiana, spoke with Hice about the current arguments recently heard in the 5th Circuit. Now the case is being heard en banc, meaning by all circuit judges.
“The lead argument that we heard from the other side was that simply posting the Ten Commandments on public school classroom walls would be unconstitutionally coercive to students. I think the theme is that somehow it would force students to change their religion, force those who have no religion to adopt religion,” says Aguiñaga.
He expects the 5th Circuit to rule in six to eight months but believes the case will advance to the Supreme Court.
Luckily, Aguiñaga informs that the judge has a hard time believing that theory. As it stands, that is not a theory of coercion that the Supreme Court has endorsed.
“There are plenty of school cases from the Supreme Court that talk about coercion to participate in a religious exercise, but there's no plausible argument that simply posting a passive display of the commandments on the wall somehow coerces somebody to participate in a religious exercise,” states Aguiñaga.
Critics point out that this idea of “coercion” was the basis of the opposition’s argument. The Family Research Council filed an amicus brief that coercion would be if the government “coerced individuals by force of law to participate in or otherwise support a formal religious exercise.” A passive display of the Ten Commandments in public school does not fall into that category.
Aguiñaga comments that it is understandable that the court found flaws in their argument. Supreme Court precedent directs the lower courts to look at history and tradition when ruling on the Establishment Clause and what it prohibits.
“It prohibits what was familiar to the founders, which was true establishments of churches. So, for example, a government that coerces somebody to attend a church, punishes those who refuse to attend a church, expressly funding a church. These are things that our framers and the founding generation were well familiar with, and that's the analysis that drives the cases today,” states Aguiñaga.
History matters
That, he says, is the problem the opposition found. Their argument against a passive Ten Commandments display held no historical comparison to the establishment of a church that the founders were concerned about.
Critics note that by the opposition’s argument the “Ten Commandments hanging on a public school’s wall makes it a church” means that any place religious documents are posted is an established church. That would include the Supreme Court as well as the House of Representatives, as Aguiñaga points out, because of their marble relief portrait of Moses.
“Our nation is covered with religious symbols and acknowledgements of the fundamental role that religion has played in our nation's history. The Supreme Court has said, obviously, that's a thing. Schools obviously have rights to say that we want to teach our students about this foundational document in our national history,” says Aguiñaga.
